This issue is just another example of where Man has corrupted the icon of God in the world. Prayer and repentance would have greater impact in restoring it as promised in the Scriptures making it into the new earth, the true image God intended. I think the key word is that man as the steward has to repent and change himself into a true steward of what belongs to God and not to man.

Can someone explain to me why it is so important for us as a society to justify climate change or our share of the blame??

Personally, it doesn't matter. Emissions are dangerous to our health. They can be managed far better than they are currently. Acid rain is dangerous and can be managed. Deforestation is dangerous and can be managed. Can anyone debate that?? Is anyone willing to claim that we as a society make efficient use of our resources and have little to impact on our planet??

If you leave a car running in a closed garage and you in it, YOU DIE. Why is it any different in world outside us?? In Milan, pedestrians use gas masks on the way to work, the air is that dangerous. In Beijing for the next Summer Olympics, they are struggling to meet air standards that are safe for long distance athletes....a person/child cannot even run outside. What kind of world do we live in?? May the Lord have mercy on us all.

I've been to Beijing. My nose itched and ran nonstop the whole three days I was there , but, as soon as we left the city, my nose stopped itching and running. (I made it to the top of the Wall, though--huffing and puffing.)

This issue is just another example of where Man has corrupted the icon of God in the world. Prayer and repentance would have greater impact in restoring it as promised in the Scriptures making it into the new earth, the true image God intended. I think the key word is that man as the steward has to repent and change himself into a true steward of what belongs to God and not to man.

Indeed. Some Orthodox theologians have opined that the environmental crisis facing the planet is essentially a spiritual one. I think that prayer and repentance are what is really needed, more than anything else, in order to "solve" the environmental "problem."

In the end, however, I believe the problem is that most models deal with far too little data and thus come up with overly simplistic models and results. Let's get everything we can together then play with evolutionary algorithms and let the AI analyze it.

You knew that I'd like that reference to AI, didn't ya?

Quote

Now I'm offended.

The statistics and (especially) modeling of ecological phenomena are the only interesting part.

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.

Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.

Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

What are the fear-mongers going to do about volcanoes and cosmic rays which affect climate a million times more than man? Yes there is evidence - just Google Danish science on climate. The world doth wax old as doth a garment. Someone (not on this forum!) is trying to force our thinking into a tight box, I wonder who?

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Right. But still, i don;t see the explanation for the satellite photos that I mentioned above.

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

After the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age from 800 AD - 1850 AD, we should be used to, based on history, that temperatures fluctuate.

Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

This is an interesting article. But then, what is the explanation for the satellite pictures and other photographic documentation of global warming?

Stanley,Satellite photographs are less than 40 years old. I am older than they are! You can't look at data over something like 100 years in a system that is millions of years old and make conclusions based on that. What about the melting sea ice and glaciers during the Medieval Warm Period? What about the expanding sea ice and glaciers during the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum?The Earth, it's oceans and it's atmosphere are a homoeostatic system, and like all homoeostatic systems, it goes through fluctuations while it adjusts itself- just like the balance in the homoeostatic system of your body. Your blood pressure, hydration level, body temperature etc. all go through fluctuations while your body seeks to correct them and keep them in balance. In the case of the Earth, these fluctuations can take hundreds and even thousands of years due to the pace of the systems which correct them (thermohaline circulation, radiative cooling, etc). To conclude that we are all doomed to irreversible global warming based on the melting of glaciers and sea ice over the past 50 years would be like concluding that your normal body temperature is 102oF because you took your temperature while you had a fever.

« Last Edit: December 21, 2007, 02:51:39 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Noah's generation caused global warming, thus causing the Great Flood. We should prepare, for we are in Noah's generation once again.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Clear cutting of dead trees and dry debris is one of the chief causes of fires speading so fast over large areas of lands. Clear cutting is an environmental hot potato, becuase the greenies dont want anyone messing with the forests whatsoever, and the loggers want to use the timber for things like furniture, plywood, deck material, paper,etc. There has to be a compromise but some states, states that have vast forests forbid the clear cutting necessary in preventing small fires from becoming large fires. For the environmental folks we have a catch-22 of sorts here.

In any event, forest fires dont even come close to the amounts of carbons emitted from all the volcanoes around the world each and every year.

In any event, forest fires dont even come close to the amounts of carbons emitted from all the volcanoes around the world each and every year.

Heck, some of the most massive volcanic eruptions in our world's history are thought to be responsible for extinction level events. Think the supervolcano that powers the hot springs and geysers in Yellowstone National Park.

Clear cutting of dead trees and dry debris is one of the chief causes of fires speading so fast over large areas of lands. Clear cutting is an environmental hot potato, becuase the greenies dont want anyone messing with the forests whatsoever, and the loggers want to use the timber for things like furniture, plywood, deck material, paper,etc. There has to be a compromise but some states, states that have vast forests forbid the clear cutting necessary in preventing small fires from becoming large fires. For the environmental folks we have a catch-22 of sorts here.

In any event, forest fires dont even come close to the amounts of carbons emitted from all the volcanoes around the world each and every year.

Nationwide, humans cause almost 80% of wildfires, but in the American Southwest, 60% to 70% of forest fires are ignited by lightning. The region leads the nation in the average number of forest fires due to lightning strikes and the number of acres burned by these fires each year (Pyne 2001, p. 6).

Heck, some of the most massive volcanic eruptions in our world's history are thought to be responsible for extinction level events. Think the supervolcano that powers the hot springs and geysers in Yellowstone National Park.

There has to be a compromise but some states, states that have vast forests forbid the clear cutting necessary in preventing small fires from becoming large fires.

Clear cuts are never necessary from an environmental perspective. See my post in the "Patriarch Bartholomew" thread.

Quote

For the environmental folks we have a catch-22 of sorts here.

Not really. Many forest fires are necessary for the health of forests. Severe fires sometimes happen when fires have been repressed for too long, and the resulting devastation can be nasty. It's difficult to manage fires for many reasons: one of the more obviously difficult things is the necessity of keeping fires away from populated areas. Again, I wrote a bit more in the other thread.

Clear cuts are never necessary from an environmental perspective. See my post in the "Patriarch Bartholomew" thread.

Not really. Many forest fires are necessary for the health of forests. Severe fires sometimes happen when fires have been repressed for too long, and the resulting devastation can be nasty. It's difficult to manage fires for many reasons: one of the more obviously difficult things is the necessity of keeping fires away from populated areas. Again, I wrote a bit more in the other thread.

So, how does the environmentalist deal with the need for forest fires and the release of carbons because of this. Does his head blowup and burst contemplating one over the other?

So, how does the environmentalist deal with the need for forest fires and the release of carbons because of this. Does his head blowup and burst contemplating one over the other?

You know, your contemptuous tone does little for the growth of this discussion or the advancement of your points. As Nectarios alluded to in the "science" thread, some of us may find it a bit much to see laypeople who read op-ed pages anointing themselves experts in scientific fields. I am certainly not an expert on climate change, but I am an ecologist and I have studied it to some extent, so I do think that I have something to contribute to this discussion. My frustration with the politicization of the climate change issue in the United States contributed to my slightly intemperate posts on this thread earlier in the game, and I'm sorry about that. From this discussion and from other quarters I have gathered that in the US, both the "left" and the "right" on this issue must both be "shouting" quite loudly about the whole thing, and that has lead some of you to decide that, in order to be a "moderate" on this issue, one must assume that climate change may or may not be happening. I'm sorry that both sides on this issue are distributing so much pseudo-scientific hysterical misinformation, but this does not change the fact that a vast majority of scientists say that global warming is happening, and that a not quite as vast, but still large majority assert that humans are the major cause. Of course, it's possible that new discoveries could be made in the future, and this majority opinion could shift. But as of right now, it's not happening. I'm sure that politics play a role in the sciences as in other disciplines, and that those who do not "tow the line" on the current "orthodox view" are isolated or ridiculed as in other disciplines. I just don't think that this is happening nearly as much as some people would like to think. I also think that some minority theories should probably be given more of a look at times. And that some are really kooky and deserve to be ignored.

Oh, and forest fires have been happening since time immemorial. They are a normal and healthy part of the ecological cycle. At times, humans supress fires for too long, and catastrophic fires are eventually the result. It is also possible that climate change may already be contributing to the severity, number and breadth of some fires in certain areas.

You know, your contemptuous tone does little for the growth of this discussion or the advancement of your points. As Nectarios alluded to in the "science" thread, some of us may find it a bit much to see laypeople who read op-ed pages anointing themselves experts in scientific fields. I am certainly not an expert on climate change, but I am an ecologist and I have studied it to some extent, so I do think that I have something to contribute to this discussion. My frustration with the politicization of the climate change issue in the United States contributed to my slightly intemperate posts on this thread earlier in the game, and I'm sorry about that. From this discussion and from other quarters I have gathered that in the US, both the "left" and the "right" on this issue must both be "shouting" quite loudly about the whole thing, and that has lead some of you to decide that, in order to be a "moderate" on this issue, one must assume that climate change may or may not be happening. I'm sorry that both sides on this issue are distributing so much pseudo-scientific hysterical misinformation, but this does not change the fact that a vast majority of scientists say that global warming is happening, and that a not quite as vast, but still large majority assert that humans are the major cause.

I believe the moderate position is that global warming is happening; however, it is uncertain whether or not it is caused by humans and even IF it is, the economic benefits of trying to somehow combat it are doubtful at best. Thus, we should ignore the issue from a policy level allowing scientists to further explore the matter without political pressure. The moderate position simply wants to see politicians get out of the debate and allow good science to decide the matter over the next few decades.

My major objection to the human cause approach is the same objection I have read from several paleoclimatologists (which are probably far more qualified to speak on the subject than most people who are creating the models). Most these models that predict human influence completely ignore the fact that we're in the middle of a global ice age and that the median temperature of the planet is about 12 degrees warmer than what we see today. As someone who was trained in Mathematics, the models of climate change I have seen in detail seem to make far to many assumptions and be anything but rigorous (granted, the rigor of Mathematics can never be achieved in this field, but you could at least try to approach the rigor of Physics and Biology in the next 30 years or so, even if modern computers arn't powerful enough).

Of course, I'm the kind of person who was even skeptical about the theory of evolution until I studied the (successful) predictions of computer models that resulted from the assumption of common ancestry, which were only made possible by advances in the sequencing of DNA and computational abilities of computers and were only published in the past couple years. Perhaps we should file all these predictions by the various models away (while keeping making more, of course) and keep collecting data over the next 30 years. That way we actually have a means to verify the models; if they remain consonant with data collected over the next few decades they they may have merit, but I hardly see how blindly accepting an unproven computer model is consonant with good science and the scientific method. And I would find it to be rather foolish to injure our economy based on a mere hypothesis (and data, not consensus, makes an hypothesis into a theory).

Quote

Of course, it's possible that new discoveries could be made in the future, and this majority opinion could shift. But as of right now, it's not happening. I'm sure that politics play a role in the sciences as in other disciplines, and that those who do not "tow the line" on the current "orthodox view" are isolated or ridiculed as in other disciplines. I just don't think that this is happening nearly as much as some people would like to think. I also think that some minority theories should probably be given more of a look at times. And that some are really kooky and deserve to be ignored.

I have nothing against scientists who believe humans are the cause of global warming based on their interpretation of the data; I only have problems with 'scientists' who insist on a policy change based on their interpretation of the data and before the evidence has been collected to turn it into a concrete scientific theory, which does not seem to have happened yet.

You know, your contemptuous tone does little for the growth of this discussion or the advancement of your points. As Nectarios alluded to in the "science" thread, some of us may find it a bit much to see laypeople who read op-ed pages anointing themselves experts in scientific fields.

Oh, and forest fires have been happening since time immemorial. They are a normal and healthy part of the ecological cycle. At times, humans supress fires for too long, and catastrophic fires are eventually the result. It is also possible that climate change may already be contributing to the severity, number and breadth of some fires in certain areas.

Boy, where is your sense of humour. I cant even make a funny when it is appropriate. Reminds me of another forum. However, let me state that the environmentalists DO have will continue to have conflicting dilemas and I have stated one. My post #115 is from the N.Y.Times. Now all of a sudden since it appears in the Times the argument becomes more relevant for some reason. I guess if the article appeared in red state town newspaper it cant be taken as legitimate. Funny, oops, sorry, how reality eventually shows itself even in places not known for it.

Noah's generation caused global warming, thus causing the Great Flood. We should prepare, for we are in Noah's generation once again.

Jetavan - I'm really dense sometimes, but you did mean to put one of those smiley thingeys behind your statement didn't you? Maybe this one or this one , cause when I read your post I was going to put in this one . Can you please elaborate on just exactly how fornication and lawlessness creates greenhouse gasses?

Logged

On the spiritual path somewhere between the Simpsons and St. Theophan the Recluse, but I still can't see the Springfield city limits sign yet.

Jetavan - I'm really dense sometimes, but you did mean to put one of those smiley thingeys behind your statement didn't you? Maybe this one or this one , cause when I read your post I was going to put in this one . Can you please elaborate on just exactly how fornication and lawlessness creates greenhouse gasses?

TinaG, I was half-joking, so I should have put a in there somewhere.

On the other hand, I was half-serious: people lived for hundreds of years during Noah's time, life-spans that could have encouraged rapid growth of scientific knowledge (think: Atlantis!). Civilizations with much knowledge and little wisdom tend to self-destruct, in one way or another. (Or am I being half-joking again? )

« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 02:02:52 AM by Jetavan »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

On the other hand, I was half-serious: people lived for hundreds of years during Noah's time, life-spans that could have encouraged rapid growth of scientific knowledge (think: Atlantis!). Civilizations with much knowledge and little wisdom tend to self-destruct, in one way or another. (Or am I being half-joking again? )

Well, if Noah's wooden box made it, why didn't their aircraft carriers and especially submarines weather the storm? And then what about their spacecraft? Why didn't they make it?

I had a teacher once that insisted that since the bible said that everything imaginable was done by people before the flood that they had automobiles, airplanes, etc. Rather silly and absurd, granted, but this teacher held to it as dogma.

TinaG, I was half-joking, so I should have put a in there somewhere.On the other hand, I was half-serious: people lived for hundreds of years during Noah's time, life-spans that could have encouraged rapid growth of scientific knowledge (think: Atlantis!). Civilizations with much knowledge and little wisdom tend to self-destruct, in one way or another. (Or am I being half-joking again? )

You must be half-joking 'cause the Mormons still haven't explained where their great and wonderful ancient American society went. What scientists have got to be the most optimistic (or brainwashed) despite their overwhelming record of failure? Mormon archeologists.

I think you'll find just as little evidence of an Atlantis like civilization during Noah's time. Now if you're talking space aliens, ancient astronauts, I'm all over that one. John Carpenter's 1982 documentary The Thing, is one of my all time favorite movies. "Chariots of the Gods, man... They practically own South America."

Logged

On the spiritual path somewhere between the Simpsons and St. Theophan the Recluse, but I still can't see the Springfield city limits sign yet.

An incredible 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science, including 9,021 Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that flatly denies Al Gore’s claims that human-caused global warming is a settled scientific fact.

Gore calls scientists and others who question the reality of human-caused global warming “deniers” and claims they are a tiny minority among the scientific community who he insists almost universally agree that the planet is being threatened by the alleged warming of the earth.

Gore told CBS’ Leslie Stahl on "60 Minutes" recently, "I think those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view. They're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat."

These 31,072 scientists do not believe the world is flat, and they say there is no convincing scientific evidence that so-called greenhouse gasses are causing catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.

On Monday, Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, (OISM) announced the results of a drive asking scientists to sign a petition stating: “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limit on greenhouse gasses would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”

The petition went on to say, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”

Robinson explained that the purpose of OISM’s petition project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong.

Despite Gore’s extravagant claims, the petition shows that no such consensus or settled science exists.

In 2001, OISM circulated what was known as the Oregon Petition, and according to Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of “The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud,” that effort, spearheaded by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University, gathered an astounding 17,800 signatures.

To establish that the effort was bona fide, and not spawned by kooks on the fringes of science, as global warming advocates often label the skeptics, the 2001 effort was spearheaded by Dr. Seitz, a towering figure in the world of science.

Solomon wrote, “The Oregon Petition garnered an astounding 17,800 signatures, a number all the more astounding because of the unequivocal stance that these scientists took: Not only did they dispute that there was convincing evidence of harm from carbon dioxide emissions, they asserted that Kyoto itself would harm the global environment because increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”

According to Dr. Robinson, “As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.”

Solomon asked, “How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?”

On Monday, Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, (OISM) announced the results of a drive asking scientists to sign a petition....

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000. Best known as a gateway to the Oregon Caves National Monument, it is described by its chamber of commerce as "the commercial, service, and cultural center for a rural community of small farms, woodlots, crafts people, and families just living apart from the crowds. ... It's a place where going into the market can take time because people talk in the aisles and at the checkstands. Life is slower, so you have to be patient. You'll be part of that slowness because it is enjoyable to be neighborly." The main visitors are tourists who come to hike, backpack and fish in the area's many rivers and streams. Cave Junction is the sort of out-of-the-way location you might seek out if you were hoping to survive a nuclear war, but it is not known as a center for scientific and medical research. The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000. Best known as a gateway to the Oregon Caves National Monument, it is described by its chamber of commerce as "the commercial, service, and cultural center for a rural community of small farms, woodlots, crafts people, and families just living apart from the crowds. ... It's a place where going into the market can take time because people talk in the aisles and at the checkstands. Life is slower, so you have to be patient. You'll be part of that slowness because it is enjoyable to be neighborly." The main visitors are tourists who come to hike, backpack and fish in the area's many rivers and streams. Cave Junction is the sort of out-of-the-way location you might seek out if you were hoping to survive a nuclear war, but it is not known as a center for scientific and medical research. The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.

OISM seems to stand for a lot of good things then from the sound of it, and that sourcewatch article just sounds like a real pathetic attempt to discredit them because some of their ideas sound old fashioned or paranoid. And even if they were fringe (nothing in that article sounds too fringe to me) 31000 scientists just signed the pledge.

What is deceptive about the 1998 petition? It had 17000 signatures, and now we have a petition with 31000 signatures. Sounds hard to explain away.

OK. So who is SourceWatch and who funds the "Center for Media and Democracy"?

Doesn't pass the sniff test either.

Again, please read the entire article if you are sceptical. It has the ring of authenticity, and is not without objectivity. But if for some reason you really don't trust Sourcewatch, there are plenty of other sources out there that debunk OISM.

If you read the rest of the article, you will find out what is deceptive about it.

Again, please read the entire article if you are sceptical. It has the ring of authenticity, and is not without objectivity. But if for some reason you really don't trust Sourcewatch, there are plenty of other sources out there that debunk OISM.

So we have two different camps equally lacking in credibility trying to debunk each other. Who's right? Whoever happens to support the notions you have adopted as your own?

From my perspective, all I see is that there is no scientists' consensus that global warming is what we're told it is, and that the preachers of man-made global warming try to engineer a consensus by calling their critics kooks and otherwise trashing their credibility. They can't address the reasoning of their opposition, so they resort to ad hominems. Yay!

OK. So who is SourceWatch and who funds the "Center for Media and Democracy"?

Doesn't pass the sniff test either.

Exactly. I took one look at this SourceWatch site, and the first thought that came to my mind was, "Man, this looks a h***uvalot like Wikipedia!" They're even set up the same way: content provided and edited by us readers. We know how credible this format is when you want something really scholarly. NOT!

So we have two different camps equally lacking in credibility trying to debunk each other. Who's right? Whoever happens to support the notions you have adopted as your own?

From my perspective, all I see is that there is no scientists' consensus that global warming is what we're told it is, and that the preachers of man-made global warming try to engineer a consensus by calling their critics kooks and otherwise trashing their credibility. They can't address the reasoning of their opposition, so they resort to ad hominems. Yay!

I didn't know that it had been determined that both were lacking in credibility.

You honestly see no merit in the Sourcewatch article? Because it seems very objective and fair to me. Did you read or at least scan the entire article?

Frankly, speaking as a non-American, I have a very hard time with the hysteria that this issue seems to generate among Americans, and the way that they insist on churning politics into the mix.

I didn't know that it had been determined that both were lacking in credibility.

You honestly see no merit in the Sourcewatch article? Because it seems very objective and fair to me. Did you read or at least scan the entire article?

Yes, I read it. It's about as credible as anything one can glean from Wikipedia, I guess. Wikipedia is good if you just want a brief survey of an issue, but I don't trust it for any real "meat and potatoes" that I would use in a scholarly paper.

Quote

Frankly, speaking as a non-American, I have a very hard time with the hysteria that this issue seems to generate among Americans, and the way that they insist on churning politics into the mix.

And you think the IPCC is NOT political? Scientists appointed by heads of state to represent their countries on an international panel organized by the United Nations? Doesn't this give the appearance that these scientists were sent to represent a preformed agenda consistent with the politics of the nations that sent them and with the U.N. agencies that brought them together. Don't you get the impression that these scientists were chosen because they toed their nations' party lines? How is that not politics?